I am attempting an explanation as to why the constitution and its system of checks and balances was perverted so quickly. Certainly, TJ and Madison never envisioned the supreme court becoming virtually absolute with no real check on power, and yet...it has become just that.
Why? The political philosophy of the founders was based on French liberalism, which made the individual conscience the sovereign judge of truth--religious and otherwise. Thier philosophy was formulated by atheists, agnostics and deists, who rejected moral absolutes. It emphasizes that men should be free to do whatever they want in moral matters and that political authority comes from the people themselves who should be free to overthrow the government--by violence if necessary--and set up new governments based on the will of the majority, as interpreted and guided by "intellectual" leaders. This stuff sparked the French revolution.
Here in America Jefferson, Franklin, and Henry, who were familiar with the writings of the French philosophers, adopted much of their philosophy and applied it to the American situation.
So...was the breakdown of our constitutional system the ramifications of liberalism? I think so. I am never popular for stating this opinion around here, but I would remind folks that all authority comes from God and if authority isn't exercised in harmony with God's law, then it isn't legitimate.
The framers specified in the constitution a republican form of government, not majority rule. -- And they also specified that congress shall make no [divine] law respecting an establishment of religion, --
Understood. But if the people were allowed to have a vote on abortion, and voted to allow all forms, the majority will have spoken. Doesn't make it right, which is why I mentioned the moral values of citizens and its leaders. Any system is only as good as the people who live under it. Also, one can acknowlede a divine creator without establishing a religion.
And why do you think the constitutional system corrupted so quickly? Please don't say "Abe Lincoln!"
---------------------------
I am attempting an explanation as to why the constitution and its system of checks and balances was perverted so quickly. Certainly, TJ and Madison never envisioned the supreme court becoming virtually absolute with no real check on power, and yet...it has become just that.
[No, it hasn't, but granted, its rarely tested.]
Why? The political philosophy of the founders was based on French liberalism, which made the individual conscience the sovereign judge of truth--religious and otherwise. Thier philosophy was formulated by atheists, agnostics and deists, who rejected moral absolutes. It emphasizes that men should be free to do whatever they want in moral matters and that political authority comes from the people themselves who should be free to overthrow the government--by violence if necessary--and set up new governments based on the will of the majority, as interpreted and guided by "intellectual" leaders. This stuff sparked the French revolution. Here in America Jefferson, Franklin, and Henry, who were familiar with the writings of the French philosophers, adopted much of their philosophy and applied it to the American situation. So...was the breakdown of our constitutional system the ramifications of liberalism? I think so. I am never popular for stating this opinion around here, but I would remind folks that all authority comes from God and if authority isn't exercised in harmony with God's law, then it isn't legitimate.
-----------------------------
-- Whew! That's a near indecipherable lecture, imo. Sorry. ------ So, you seem to advocate some sort of 'God' amendment? -- Care to frame a sample of one?
----------------------------
The framers specified in the constitution a republican form of government, not majority rule. -- And they also specified that congress shall make no [divine] law respecting an establishment of religion, -- .
----------------------------
Understood. But if the people were allowed to have a vote on abortion, and voted to allow all forms, the majority will have spoken. Doesn't make it right, which is why I mentioned the moral values of citizens and its leaders. Any system is only as good as the people who live under it. Also, one can acknowlede a divine creator without establishing a religion. And why do you think the constitutional system corrupted so quickly? Please don't say "Abe Lincoln!"
You write 'understood', -- but then go on, and on, - making it quite clear that you haven't. -- Again, sorry I asked.
They never envisioned a society in which the USSC would be the only safeguard besides the 2nd amendment and the citizen-soldier against tyrannical government policies. Be glad that the USSC can rule on any government action, that is the only check that keeps the Congress and President from conspiring successfully to turn us into a police state.
Here in America Jefferson, Franklin, and Henry, who were familiar with the writings of the French philosophers, adopted much of their philosophy and applied it to the American situation
They were influenced by Locke. Locke influenced the French Revolution. Locke was the preeminent classical liberal philosopher. He was to classical liberalism and many modern American conservatives what Marx is to Socialism.
So...was the breakdown of our constitutional system the ramifications of liberalism? I think so. I am never popular for stating this opinion around here, but I would remind folks that all authority comes from God and if authority isn't exercised in harmony with God's law, then it isn't legitimate.
You don't even apparently understand what the only alternative to liberalism is, despotism. Despotism cannot even maintain a civil society, especially not anymore. Afghanistan is a perfect example. Had we not overthrown the Taliban, the Taliban would have literally driven the majority of the country's population into extinction. Only liberal societies have become advanced and stable societies. The reason is simple, liberalism is obsessed with the means, not the ends. Liberalism is an absolute political moral code. To a liberal, unless you are having to protect individual rights from a terribly powerful opponent, the ends virtually never justify the means if the means are immoral. That is why Liberals will virtually never advocate security at the cost of individual rights. Liberal theory on rights includes the belief that when you restrict just the rights of the current batch of citizens, you restrict the rights of every human being who will be a part of society until the policy is replaced. That is part of the reason why Liberals oppose gun control, we believe that every single person who will die from someone not being able to own a gun for self-defense is a victim, regardless of whether they exist now or 1000 years from now. A child who will not be born in 2479 AD because his/her mother will be murdered because she didn't have a gun to defend herself is a victim of a gun control policy enacted today. We act with far more restraint in politics than those who claim to have divinely given knowledge because we readily admit that we cannot forsee the consequences of our actions beyond the immediate future and that as a result we must be as rational, deliberate and concerned with detail as possible. People that claim to know what God wants, virtually never exhibit such qualities.